Commies sell out in Iraq

18 posts / 0 new
Last post
Anarch
Offline
Joined: 22-09-04
Oct 28 2004 04:41
Commies sell out in Iraq

This is pretty interesting

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/iraq-j29.shtml

I guess the glorious ICP decided to join up with the Imperial agressors. Do you think there could be any reasonable defense for such an action? I suppose it could be argued that they were trying to make sure things went as favorably as possible for the working class in these troubled times. But this seems ridiculous and I would think that the invasion of one's home by US troops would be a good catalyst for communist supported resistance.

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Oct 28 2004 08:24

I always get confused with the iraqi communist party and worker-communist party of iraq, i met a guy who was from wcp and mistakenly asked if he was from cp, and he was majorly offended! smile

anyway, i like the site of wcp, gives another perspective on issues on the ground in iraq.

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Oct 28 2004 16:47

Instead of holding the ground away from the imperial aggressors and the islamic separatists they jump into to bed with the new puppet state. This position cannot be defended, its pathetic, how can you claim to be a voice of the workers when you back something which has caused so much pain on the workers.

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Oct 28 2004 17:19
revol68 wrote:
i agree with u wetheyouth, pity so many "anarchists" also have trouble holding their ground and end up suppporting brutal anti working class scum like the mehdi army.

Who proclaimed support for them, out of curiosity?

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Oct 28 2004 18:54

fucking hell. Victory to the resistance will only lead to an islamic state like iran. Victory to the imperialists will only lead to a despotic lead capitalist state. It is idiocy to support either of these outcomes.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Oct 28 2004 19:16
WeTheYouth wrote:
fucking hell. Victory to the resistance will only lead to an islamic state like iran. Victory to the imperialists will only lead to a despotic lead capitalist state. It is idiocy to support either of these outcomes.

The iranian working class are now better off than the iraqi working class. They have a higher standard of living on average and are not bombed to shit by coalition forces every day.

The Iranian ruling class is split between the islamists and the reformers, when american threatens the region the islamists gain power for obvious reasons. The iranian working class is slowly organising itself, and if the US was driven out of the rtegion, thw roking class would be able to better organise itself.

The ruling class can't simply do whatever they want in any society, they need to legitimise themselves to some degree, without imperialism it is far harder to do. Also more production (in particular of weapons) will be concentrated within iraq and iran, so the working class can actually threaten insurrection.

The concetration of capital in iraq that would occur if imperialism is driven out, means that the resulting indiustriual development would strengthen the iraqi ruling class.

Of course there are complications. Take india, the impeirlaist split it up, so that the new states challenged each other making them less of a threat to the cold war hegemony. However, even taking this division into account, (which in iraq could also end up being inevitable, given ethnic and religious differences), the standard of living for the indian working class has improved since independence.

Noone but an ultra left nutjob would try to argue that the left at the time shouldn't have called for a withdrawal of british troops from india.

john

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Oct 28 2004 19:49
Quote:
The iranian working class are now better off than the iraqi working class. They have a higher standard of living on average and are not bombed to shit by coalition forces every day.

I think you forget to point out that the iranian population is terrorised by the state. I think you forget also that the islamic seperatists are also blowing up the iraqi working class.

Quote:
The Iranian ruling class is split between the islamists and the reformers, when american threatens the region the islamists gain power for obvious reasons. The iranian working class is slowly organising itself, and if the US was driven out of the rtegion, thw roking class would be able to better organise itself.

The iranian ruling class is still binded by the traditional values of the revolution, and it is the Islamists in the government who have the all the power. So even if the Coalition loses, the iraqi population will be left with a state run by a book, and islamo facsist tyrants.

Quote:
The ruling class can't simply do whatever they want in any society, they need to legitimise themselves to some degree, without imperialism it is far harder to do. Also more production (in particular of weapons) will be concentrated within iraq and iran, so the working class can actually threaten insurrection.

I disagree, iraqi nationalism and islamic seperatism will be able to legitimise themselves far easier than the imperialist controlled government. Mainly because that iraq is an islamic country, also there is alot of anti-western sentiment. It is stupidity to support the iraqi resistance or the capitalists.

Quote:
Of course there are complications. Take india, the impeirlaist split it up, so that the new states challenged each other making them less of a threat to the cold war hegemony. However, even taking this division into account, (which in iraq could also end up being inevitable, given ethnic and religious differences), the standard of living for the indian working class has improved since independence.

Noone but an ultra left nutjob would try to argue that the left at the time shouldn't have called for a withdrawal of british troops from india.

So is it okay for someone on the left to support the iraqi militias? No. It wrong to support either, by supporting either of these murderers is just plain wrong. We need to support the iraqi people in there search for an alternative to the two main forces in iraq now. Under an Islamic state or a capitalist puppet state the working class will have better standards of living in times of peace, you showed taht yourself by pointing out iran and india, one is capitalist and the other is an islamic state both working class populations have better standards of living so either outcome the workers will have a better standard of living in peace.

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Oct 29 2004 08:06

interesting points john, but one can't compare iran to iraq for the simple reason of religious tensions. Shia muslims are killed in iraq at the moment at a higher rate than coalition forces by sunni militants. The images from shia people marching to fallujah (sunni) in solidarity bringing food and medical supplies was an encouraging sight, but the sunni extremist do not want that to happen.

When you are a religious nutter with god on your side you don't spend that much time thinking of strategy.

al-qaida is as much against shias as they are against christians. Just check out whats happening in pakistan and the almost daily killings of shias there.

So i can't agree with your analysis of the situation john, the civil war in iraq is inevitable (well, it's ongoing already) and it will be a theatre of extremist forces battling for a while. Perhaps the country will split?

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Oct 29 2004 09:28
WeTheYouth wrote:
I think you forget to point out that the iranian population is terrorised by the state. I think you forget also that the islamic seperatists are also blowing up the iraqi working class.

Yes thats right, the iraqi islamists aim is to kill everyone in the iraqi working class, well obviously roll eyes

Of course the national bourgeoisie teroorise the proletariat, the point is that they do it LESS than imperialaists, because imperialism offers the maintenance of feudal structures and complete domination, where class struggle becomes extremely difficult.

I restate my point, the iranian working class are better off than the iraqi working class at present.

Quote:
The iranian ruling class is still binded by the traditional values of the revolution, and it is the Islamists in the government who have the all the power. So even if the Coalition loses, the iraqi population will be left with a state run by a book, and islamo facsist tyrants.

yes, i know.

Quote:
I disagree, iraqi nationalism and islamic seperatism will be able to legitimise themselves far easier than the imperialist controlled government. Mainly because that iraq is an islamic country, also there is alot of anti-western sentiment. It is stupidity to support the iraqi resistance or the capitalists.

No you're wrong, look at the struggles going on within iran over the last years that were weakening the islamists powers.

Anti-western sentiment is not simply the product of religion, for fucks sake it might have more to do with the decades of war these countires have fought against us.

More seriosuly i have to ask do you support the withdrawal of troops from iraq.

Quote:
Quote:
Of course there are complications. Take india, the impeirlaist split it up, so that the new states challenged each other making them less of a threat to the cold war hegemony. However, even taking this division into account, (which in iraq could also end up being inevitable, given ethnic and religious differences), the standard of living for the indian working class has improved since independence.

Noone but an ultra left nutjob would try to argue that the left at the time shouldn't have called for a withdrawal of british troops from india.

So is it okay for someone on the left to support the iraqi militias? No. It wrong to support either, by supporting either of these murderers is just plain wrong. We need to support the iraqi people in there search for an alternative to the two main forces in iraq now. Under an Islamic state or a capitalist puppet state the working class will have better standards of living in times of peace, you showed taht yourself by pointing out iran and india, one is capitalist and the other is an islamic state both working class populations have better standards of living so either outcome the workers will have a better standard of living in peace.

Your misunderstanding what the word support means. I support the slogan victory to the resistance. This means i think that it would be an improvement if the resistance shoudl drive out the imperilaists and that the coailition were forced to withdraw troops and cease combat operations by reistance and internal disruption.

That is all the ''support'' i can realistically give.

The islamic state is a capitalist state, iran is a capitalist state. Iraq is not strctly a capitalist state, imeprialism leaves more feudal structures in place. If you are unable to grasp even the most simple class concepts this is a hopeless arguement.

Capitalism creates a surplus exploted by the bourgeoisie. In a single capitalist state a section of this surplus goes into refoms (because the working class are a major threat) and keeping the reproduction rate of the working class stable, and general urban and industrial development (new factories, new housing and so on). SO while capitalism exploits the working class, it creates the conditions for its overthrow by strengthening the industrial base of the proletariat.

Under imperialism the capital flows out of that region (iraq) into another (the US, western europe), largely down the oil pipeline in this case. Iraq industrial development is kept at a low level and restruicted to uindustries which benefit the occupying power under the basic merc antilist perations of imperialism. Population growth is lower due to the lack of urban development. The iraqi working class is unarmed as weapons production is and faces a foreign army which will not mutiny.Therefore the imperialist power has no real need to offer reforms or legitmise itself, because the working class is weak and revolt would be bloody and hopeless.

The standard of living is lower therefore under imperialism, the level of eductaion is lower, and feudal structures remain in place. The strength of the islamists is partly a PRODUCT of imperialism, in that it relies for its base of ''volunteers'' on unemployed undereducated poverty stricken youths from ruined districts of cities like basra and fallujah.

john

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Oct 29 2004 09:36
JDMF wrote:
the civil war in iraq is inevitable (well, it's ongoing already) and it will be a theatre of extremist forces battling for a while. Perhaps the country will split?

yeah, that i agree with. It probly will split.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Oct 29 2004 11:01
cantdocartwheels wrote:
The iraqi working class is unarmed as weapons production is and faces a foreign army which will not mutiny.

You make some interesting points, but just quickly saying the iraqi w/c is unarmed is pretty silly...

Also I feel I should add that as you essex lot are so keen on pointing out - the answer is class (i.e. not nationalism).

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Oct 29 2004 11:58
George'sBush wrote:
cantdocartwheels wrote:
The iraqi working class is unarmed as weapons production is and faces a foreign army which will not mutiny.

You make some interesting points, but just quickly saying the iraqi w/c is unarmed is pretty silly...

Also I feel I should add that as you essex lot are so keen on pointing out - the answer is class (i.e. not nationalism).

Then why are you claiming there is a working class movement that represents the whole of iraq, when there clearly isn't and that to claim that would be nationalist thinking anyway. There are various trade unions strong in some regions, and parties that have strength in some regions thats all, overall the left in iraq is currently very weak in comparison to the islamists anbd in certain reasons there is no lefgt to speak of, does this mean we should abandon the iraqis in theese regions to their fate because they don't have a workers movement that meets our decidedly ultra-left standards?

And yes they are unarmed, the mehdi army gets its weapons from iran, who is going to arm the iraqi working class? Where are they going to get weapons and ammunition from?

Yet again i'm pointing out the slogan Victory to the Resistance, does not mean that you support islamists over workers movements, what it means is that you think the first priority is for imperialist forces to be removed from iraq, so you unconditionally support the withdrawal of troops and recognise that independent capitalist state(s) in the region are preferable to the foreign domination of the region.

john

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Oct 29 2004 14:12
Quote:
Yes thats right, the iraqi islamists aim is to kill everyone in the iraqi working class, well obviously

Well obviously so are the coalition roll eyes They kill innocent people, for no good reason.

Quote:
Of course the national bourgeoisie teroorise the proletariat, the point is that they do it LESS than imperialaists, because imperialism offers the maintenance of feudal structures and complete domination, where class struggle becomes extremely difficult.

I restate my point, the iranian working class are better off than the iraqi working class at present.

I restate my point so are all working class populations better off in times off peace.

Quote:
No you're wrong, look at the struggles going on within iran over the last years that were weakening the islamists powers.

Anti-western sentiment is not simply the product of religion, for fucks sake it might have more to do with the decades of war these countires have fought against us.

More seriosuly i have to ask do you support the withdrawal of troops from iraq.

I have read about the struggles in iran, they are similar to the ones we have saw in western societies aswell. Do i support the withdrawal of troops from iraq, well what a silly question, of course i do, but i also would want the islamic seperatists to leave aswell, so the iraqi people can fill the vaccuum.

Quote:
Your misunderstanding what the word support means. I support the slogan victory to the resistance. This means i think that it would be an improvement if the resistance shoudl drive out the imperilaists and that the coailition were forced to withdraw troops and cease combat operations by reistance and internal disruption.

That is all the ''support'' i can realistically give.

It would be an improvement if there was peace, from whoever achieved it. Giving support to either, is ridiculous, the resistance will only end up turning iraq into another afghanistan or iran.

Quote:
The islamic state is a capitalist state, iran is a capitalist state. Iraq is not strctly a capitalist state, imeprialism leaves more feudal structures in place. If you are unable to grasp even the most simple class concepts this is a hopeless arguement.

I agree it is extremely hopeless considering that iran is not your bog standard capitalist mixed economy state, it is run by what the prophet laid out in his teachings, not by the markets, not by free enterprise, iran is more like a authoritarian socialist state than a capitalist one. And imperialism leaves in feudal structures? No it will not, look at south korea, you could say that it is controlled by the USA, that does not run on feudal structures. Again look at Haiti, that does not run on feudal structures. Maybe another example would be northern ireland, i dont see feudal structures there, anybody else? The most simple class concept which you are trying to argue is ridiculous, if the coalition win, capitalism will flourish there like it did in the 1970's, and western structures of power will be imposed on the population, i dont think feudal structures will exist at all.

Quote:
Capitalism creates a surplus exploted by the bourgeoisie. In a single capitalist state a section of this surplus goes into refoms (because the working class are a major threat) and keeping the reproduction rate of the working class stable, and general urban and industrial development (new factories, new housing and so on). SO while capitalism exploits the working class, it creates the conditions for its overthrow by strengthening the industrial base of the proletariat.

No that only stengthens the hold over the working class. whilst we all agree that better conditions are a good victory for the working class, it does not lay the foundation for a revolution at all, it does the opposite and legitimises the current order.

Quote:
Under imperialism the capital flows out of that region (iraq) into another (the US, western europe), largely down the oil pipeline in this case. Iraq industrial development is kept at a low level and restruicted to uindustries which benefit the occupying power under the basic merc antilist perations of imperialism. Population growth is lower due to the lack of urban development. The iraqi working class is unarmed as weapons production is and faces a foreign army which will not mutiny.Therefore the imperialist power has no real need to offer reforms or legitmise itself, because the working class is weak and revolt would be bloody and hopeless.

I disagree with you again, it will be harder to overthrow an islamic state, as iraq is an islamic country so therefore hegemony will be stronger. It woudl be easier to overthrow the imperialist puppet regime as it will be extremely hard to legitimise itself.

Quote:
The standard of living is lower therefore under imperialism, the level of eductaion is lower, and feudal structures remain in place. The strength of the islamists is partly a PRODUCT of imperialism, in that it relies for its base of ''volunteers'' on unemployed undereducated poverty stricken youths from ruined districts of cities like basra and fallujah.

the standard of living under a non secular state is not much better than that under imperialism. The resistance maybe pre-dominanty working class youths but that does not make it legitimate, these people are murderers and scum, just like the occupying powers.

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Oct 31 2004 17:03
Quote:
What the fuck are you talking about? What's this vague abstract concept of the "Iraqi people"? Do you actually think it's realistic that the Islamicists are going to "withdraw"? What would that entail? Fleeing their country? Why exactly would they do that? Where are they going to go? Are you saying we should cheerlead US/UK forces shooting down Islamicists?

Fleeing their country? it is not there country, it is the ordinary peoples country not the islamic militants country. Why do i need to restate this point over and over? We should not support either of them, they both are murderers and will create a tyrannical state and system in iraq.

Quote:
Christ, so what, we're going to get some third campist bullshit here?? Of course an Islamic Iraqi state would be shit. We don't dispute that. However, like with Vietnam, a militaryd efeat for the major imperialist powers is clearly going to somewhat hold back aggressive capitalist expansionism on a world scale, and also allow the working class to develop to a level where they can effectivly mount struggles, and work towards their own self liberation. In an occupied nation, that clearly isn't going to happen.

Your whole analysis that under the imperial state the workers wont organise against the state is ridiculous, the workers will rebel with ferocity against the foreign imperial powers than they would against an islamic state.

Quote:
So what are you saying? That it's best to keep the working class living in shit so they're more likely to overthrow capital?

You definately know that isnt what i said. Social welfare buys off the working class, which ultimately weakens and blurs class conflict.

Quote:
If that is the case, then why are 'secular' states no less prone to revolutionary uprising than 'Christian' states, in say Europe?

Well when looking at the koran it clearly states how society should work, and the islamic seperatists are tryinge to get back to the days just after the prophet the time of the Kalifahs. So threfore it wll be easier to legitimise an islamic state to muslim people that it would to legitimise an imperial state. And with christianity in the west it was christian values that brought about capitalism, and in the west hegemony is extremely strong.

Quote:
Yes, but at least that way it would have the POTENTIAL for the working class to struggle to win improved conditions. And I find your analogy of US/UK forces as being the same as the resistance fucking disgusting. As if people fighting to (in their eyes) liberate their people are the same as those plundering for Western capitalism. Fine, if you have criticism of the resistance (as we do), fuck, fine even if you don't support them. But to act as if there's no difference, is just such ridiculous self delusion, it's not even worth continuing debating with you.

Why do you find it disgusting, they are both fighting for there own sick endeavours so why should one be seen different to the other, they are both murdering scum, indiscriminate murderers at that.

The self delusion is not mine, i think your whole analysis of the conflict and of an islamic state is plain wrong. Class struggle is harder when you live by the words of the most important teachings to a muslim, i think you seriously need to reconsider what you beleive about an islamic state in an islamic country, also your defence of the militias in ridiculous, in times of peace whatever the ruling elite are the workers will have better standars fo living.

Topic locked